JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner purchased touzi No. 6 of the 2-Pargands Collectorate in a revenue sale on January 6, 1936. It is said that one-sixth share of the lands in suit appertains to this touzi. He has, therefore, instituted a suit for declaration of his title and recovery of joint possession to the extent of this one-sixth share and for mesne profits against the opposite parties. 2. The valuation put by the Plaintiff was Rs. 5,000 for these properties, plus Rs. 95 as the tentative assessment of mesne profits, plus Rs. 5 as the value of the prayer for injunction, the total valuation being thus put at Rs. 5,100. 3. An enquiry was held by the court in course of which witnesses were examined on behalf of the Plaintiff, as also for the (sic) opposite parties. The Plaintiff's share of the land is admittedly ten cottas tenanted and six cottas khash. As regards the tenanted portion, evidence was given on behalf of the Plaintiff that the collection in one-sixth share was Rs. 203 proximately, while the evidence given by the Defendants' (sic) was that it would be about Rs. 400. The learned (sic) Judge has not clearly said which version he accepts; but has said that, if the statement of Defendants' witness as regards realisation be accepted, the total value for the purpose of court-fee would be Rs. 6,000 (15 times the net profits), while, if the Plaintiff's witnesses' account was taken, it could be Rs. 3,045. From what he has said elsewhere in his judgment, it is clear that he accepts Rs. 0,000 as the correct (sic). As regards the khash land, he seems inclined to link, on consideration of two kabalas for sale of lands nearby, that the average price of the lands might be taken to be Rs. 2,500 per cottd. On this calculation he says the value of the khash lands, would be not less than Rs. 15,000. If the (sic) land was valued on the basis of the statement as regards the income given by the Defendants' witnesses, he said is already mentioned, the valuation of that portion would be Rs. 6,000, so that the total valuation of the suit would exceed Rs. 20,000. After making, as he says, "some allowance in favour of the Plaintiff", he assessed the value of the properties to be Rs. 20,000. 6,000, so that the total valuation of the suit would exceed Rs. 20,000. After making, as he says, "some allowance in favour of the Plaintiff", he assessed the value of the properties to be Rs. 20,000. To this he has added the amount of Rs. 100 in account of the total claim for the mesne profits and injunction and has, accordingly, assessed the total value at Rs. 20,100. It was on this that he asked for court-fees and called on the Plaintiff to put in the deficit court-fees. 4. The main ground on which Mr. Baksi, appearing for the Petitioner, has asked us to exercise our revisional jurisdiction and to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is that, in holding the enquiry as a result of which he lame to this conclusion as regards the value of the land, the earned Subordinate Judge has been guilty of material Irregularity, inasmuch as he, without sufficient reason, refused the prayer for local investigation. 5. It cannot be doubted and is in fact conceded by Mr. Chakrabarti, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties that for a proper assessment of the market value of the land, it was essential that a local investigation should be held. The value of lands, like the value of almost every other commodity, depends on its quality. In the case of land, this quality is made up, among other things, of its situation, its character, viz., whether it is firm land, or tank filled land, whether it is high land or low, whether it is in a compact block or made up small bits here and there and other features which need not mentioned in detail. Satisfactory evidence on some of the points may perhaps be obtained by direct evidence; but no prop idea of the shape or situation of the land can really be obtain by a court without the assistance of a map carefully (sic) correctly prepared as the result of a survey. In the circumstances, it seems to us that, even where any party do not make a prayer for local investigation, it is desirable that (sic) court, holding enquiry, should either inspect the land himself or have a proper map prepared by means of a local investigation by a commissioner appointed under the provisions of law. In the circumstances, it seems to us that, even where any party do not make a prayer for local investigation, it is desirable that (sic) court, holding enquiry, should either inspect the land himself or have a proper map prepared by means of a local investigation by a commissioner appointed under the provisions of law. Where as in the present case, the Plaintiff did make a prayer for loc investigation, we cannot but think that the court acted (sic) material irregularity in not allowing this prayer. It is true, pointed out by Mr. Chakrabarti, that the prayer was made at late stage. It is to be remembered, however, that the (sic) where the investigation had to be held is within a very (sic) distance of the court and an investigation of this nature could not be expected to take more than a few hours, certainly no more than a few days. In these circumstances, the rejection (sic) the prayer for local investigation amounted, in our opinion, to a infringement of what may be called almost the essentials (sic) justice. Certainly, it was departure from the recognised rule of procedure. 6. The question has been raised whether, even though we (sic) that the court below was guilty of such material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, we are prevented from exercising our revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Court-fees Act. Section 12 of the Court-fees Act provides: Every question, relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fees chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be is filed and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. 7. It has been argued that if this decision is final, the court's power of revision can have no application. We are not impressed by this argument. When the Act says that the decision of the court will be final, we have no doubt it thinks of finality in the same way as the decision of the Small Cause Court is final. It would certainly be not open to us to sit on appeal on the conclusions arrived at by the court on an assessment of the evidence before it. It would certainly be not open to us to sit on appeal on the conclusions arrived at by the court on an assessment of the evidence before it. The finality of the decision cannot be questioned by attacking the conclusions of the court on the assessment of evidence. That is no reason, however, for this Court to refuse to exercise its powers u/s 115 of the Code, which in terms are limited to cases where no appeal lies. We are clearly of opinion that where, as in the present case, the art, in coming to a conclusion on a question of valuation for (sic) purpose of determining the amount of court-fee payable, has (sic) illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, it is not only right hut the duty of this Court to exercise its powers u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned (sic) Judge and remand the case back to him for certainment of the value of the suit in accordance with law, (sic) giving a proper opportunity to the Plaintiff for holding a cal investigation and giving both parties such other opportunities of adducing documentary evidence, etc., as regards the collection of rent and of sale of similar lands in the locality; and after following, as regards the tenanted land, the procedure is laid down in Section 7v(a) of the Court-fees Act. 9. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute; the parties will (sic) their own costs.